A Rhode Island city used a jaw-dropping legal maneuver in a case brought by a pet store seeking recovery of its assets.
The city of East Providence first argued the case should be moved from state court to federal court, then argued it had to be moved back, leaving the store owner with hearings denied in both systems.
Last year, Perfect Puppy obtained city and state permits to open a new store in East Providence. But immediately the city adopted an ordinance banning the sales of dogs or cats through pet stores, forcing the store to close. The municipal decision rendered the lease on the building and the license worthless.
“The underlying issues aren’t complicated; they’re as basic as the difference between right and wrong,” said J. David Breemer of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
“If government takes your property, government has to pay you for it,” he said. “And that goes for government action that destroys the use or value of your property.”
Breemer said citizens are entitled to access to the courts to uphold their rights.
“This isn’t just a matter of fairness; it’s a constitutional rule that every American knows or should know,” he said. “In fact, the case amounts to Constitutional Property Rights 101.”
Read Judge Napolitano’s warning, “It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.”
Pacific Justice, a watchdog for limited government, property rights and free enterprise, plans to file an appeal this summer.
The group said that instead of “owning up to its constitutional violation and doing the fair thing by offering compensation for its taking, the city responded to Perfect Puppy’s litigation with a procedural gimmick.”
The city’s lawyers transferred the case to a federal court on the basis that it raised federal constitutional questions.
“Then, they argued that the takings claim was unripe (or procedurally premature) in federal court – and couldn’t be heard there – because it had to be first fully litigated in state court.”
PLF said the federal court judge “accepted this bizarre argument and declined to hear Perfect Puppy’s case.”
“Instead, the case was sent back to state court – where Perfect Puppy originally started but couldn’t get a hearing because the city moved the case to federal court.”
So the company was left with rejection notices in both state and federal court systems, PLF said.
The result was “legal limbo” for the owners.
“They were denied a hearing in state court and now have been denied a hearing in the federal court,” said the legal team, which is planning to ask for the case to be revived at the federal level.
The team succeeded several years ago in a similar case when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped in its tracks a similar procedural ploy by a North Carolina town.
“Government can’t deny citizens their day in court by procedural gamesmanship,” Breemer said. “We’re in America, not a Kafka novel. Government lawyers can’t perform absurd procedural contortions to leave property owners dizzied, financially exhausted and without their day in court.”
Perfect Puppy owner Scott Bergantino said in a statement released through PLF that the case is about “basic fairness.”
“Everyone’s constitutional right not to be deprived of their property without just compensation,” he said.
City officials did not respond to a WND request for comment left during business hours Thursday.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/city-uses-shell-game-ploy-against-puppy-store/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/city-uses-shell-game-ploy-against-puppy-store/
No comments:
Post a Comment